Hunt For Libertyhttps://huntforliberty.com
Hunt For LibertyMon, 21 Jan 2019 11:00:53 +0000en-UShourly1Dem’s Bad Anti-Gun Billhttps://huntforliberty.com/dems-bad-anti-gun-bill/
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:00:53 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28741Feinstein’s Scattershot Anti-Gun Bill Badly Misses the Mark Amy Swearer & Peyton Smith / January 14, 2019 The firearms banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill are not military-grade at all, even if they mimic military appearances. Democrats promised that if they retook control of the House, gun control would be a top priority. They have wasted little time…

The firearms banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill are not military-grade at all, even if they mimic military appearances.

Democrats promised that if they retook control of the House, gun control would be a top priority. They have wasted little time in seeking to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The bill would prohibit the future sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of “military-style assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines—in other words, it would keep law-abiding Americans from buying many of the most popular firearms used for hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense.

The bill appears to be similar to ineffective legislation passed in 1994, in California and in Canada. If passed, it would have the same ineffective results.

The bill’s text is not yet available to the public, but the senators’ press release indicates that the bill would prohibit, among other things, the purchase or transfer of:

205 firearms by name.

Any firearm that has a detachable magazine, plus one or more “military” characteristic, like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, or telescoping stock.

Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Bump stocks.

Pistols that weigh more than 50 ounces (per the 1994 ban).

Pistol-stabilizing braces.

Furthermore, Feinstein’s bill would require universal background checks for the future purchase or transfer of the firearms covered by the bill. That’s a bit baffling, given that their future purchase or transfer would be prohibited entirely.

And while the tens of millions of Americans who already own these firearms would have them “grandfathered in,” the bill would require the guns to be kept with a trigger lock or in some form of “secure storage” when not in use.

Finally, the bill apparently would exempt 2,200 guns for “hunting, household defense, or recreational purposes.” It is unclear which types of guns would be exempted or why, but given the bill’s purpose and the rhetoric surrounding certain firearms, it’s unlikely that the exemptions would include the most popular “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 or full-size Glock handguns.

Fallacies of the Ban

If the press release is any indication, Feinstein’s bill is premised largely on anti-gun rhetoric and isn’t based on facts. It uses purposefully misleading terminology and focuses on the firearms least likely to be involved in firearm-related deaths.

Most importantly, it uses a framework that has already failed to save lives in the United States.

1.) Misleading terminology: The title of the bill itself uses language that has no technical value, but is intended solely as a scare tactic.

There’s no such thing as an “assault weapon,” and the use of the term is intended to associate these commonly used semi-automatic firearms with “assault rifles,” which have long been heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and are not commonly owned by civilians.

Actual assault rifles are military-grade, fully automatic firearms. In fact, the term “assault rifle” is a military term, and is defined by the U.S. military to mean a compact weapon capable of selective fire and utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

In other words, an “assault rifle” can fire in fully automatic, burst, and semi-automatic modes, and uses a bullet caliber higher than that of a typical handgun.

But the firearms banned under Feinstein’s bill are not military-grade at all, even if they mimic military appearances. While the popular AR-15 may fire an intermediate-power cartridge, it is a civilian gun that cannot fire in burst or fully automatic modes.

Further, many “AR-15-style” rifles prohibited by the bill can be purchased in lower calibers that are no more lethal than a handgun—a fact the bill does not take into account when defining “assault weapon.”

Instead of focusing on lethality, the bill focuses on cosmetic features. Ironically, this means that law-abiding civilians will be stripped of the very features that enable them to fire safely and more accurately.

A pistol grip, for example, helps inexperienced or smaller shooters maintain a more stable base—something of vital importance when making a life-or-death shot.

2.) It doesn’t address real problems: The fact of the matter is that banning future sales of “scary-looking” guns won’t save lives. Simply put, semi-automatic rifles and factory-standard magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not the problem.

Consider the following:

In 2016, 22,938 of 38,658 firearm-related deaths were suicides. In other words, magazine capacity was unquestionably not at issue in nearly two-thirds of firearm-related deaths.

Further, studies have shown that the use of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds does not increase the lethality of mass public shootings, largely because shooters compensate by bringing multiple magazines, which can be switched out in just a few seconds.

Only 4 percent to 6 percent of firearm-related homicides are facilitated by rifles of any kind. The overwhelming majority of firearm deaths involve handguns.

Mass shooting deaths—the major impetus for bans on “assault weapons”—account for roughly 1 percent of all annual firearm deaths. Even then, 73 percent of those shootings involve handguns or shotguns.

3.) It doesn’t work in states that already have it: If those numbers aren’t enough, similar “assault weapon” bans have failed to prevent mass public shootings in places where they already exist.

California has long prohibited the purchase and possession of these firearms, and yet experiences a higher ratio of mass public shootings relative to its population than do other, less gun-restrictive states.

Finally, the United States already tried Feinstein’s solution with the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 and on which her current bill is based.

The official assessment of the ban was less than glowing, noting that the relative rarity of deaths involving these types of firearms made it impossible to attribute lower firearm-related crime rates or homicide rates to the ban.

How to Actually Save Lives

Gun violence is a serious problem, and just because Feinstein’s bill doesn’t offer an effective solution doesn’t mean solutions don’t exist. So, what can policymakers do without broadly infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Lower the time it takes to confront armed criminals—and particularly mass shooters—in part by allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves more often and in more places. This year, Americans will use their firearms for lawful defense of life and property between 500,000 and 3 million times. Armed civilians have also stopped numerous mass publicshootings.

More effectively utilize existing mental health frameworks to ensure that individuals with suicidal tendencies receive necessary help. This can include imposing so-called red flag laws, as long as adequate due process is afforded and there is a restoration mechanism to ensure that individuals who are no longer a heightened risk of danger receive their Second Amendment rights back. Sixty percent of mass shooters have been diagnosed with a mental disorder or demonstrated clear signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack.

Increase educational and economic opportunities in struggling urban areas that are most susceptible to gang- and drug-related gun violence, which accounts for a significant portion of gun-related homicides. Gang- and drug-related activity drive black market firearms transfers.

The worst part of Feinstein’s bill isn’t that it picks an unnecessary fight with law-abiding gun owners or demonizes the firearms least likely to be involved in crime. It’s that this unnecessary fight turns the public focus away from actual solutions to very real problems. In the meantime, lives will continue to be lost.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Peyton Smith is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

]]>EPA Finally Reined Inhttps://huntforliberty.com/epa-finally-reined-in/
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:00:53 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28739Trump EPA Rejects Egregious Cost-Benefit Analysis of Controversial Rule Daren Bakst January 17, 2019 The costs of the Obama-era MATS rule were as much as 2,400 times greater than the benefits For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been issuing some of the costliest regulations in U.S. history, especially when it comes to its air…

The costs of the Obama-era MATS rule were as much as 2,400 times greater than the benefits

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been issuing some of the costliest regulations in U.S. history, especially when it comes to its air pollution regulations.

The EPA has moved forward with these regulations, even when there have been little to no benefits to achieving the stated objectives of the rules. If this meant there was more harm than good, that was fine to the EPA.

A few weeks ago, the EPA released a proposed rule addressing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule for power plants, the so-called MATS rule.

When the Obama EPA finalized the MATS rule in 2012, it didn’t bother to consider costs when deciding whether to regulate mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from power plants.

That led to a Supreme Court case, Michigan v. EPA, challenging the agency’s failure to properly consider whether the rule was “appropriate and necessary,” as required under the relevant section of the Clean Air Act (Section 112).

In 2015, the court held that the EPA, because of that “appropriate and necessary” language, must consider costs.

In 2016, the Obama administration “considered” costs and published a supplemental finding concluding that the MATS rule was “appropriate and necessary.” That was despite the fact that the benefits of reducing mercury emissions as determined by the Obama administration were $4 million to $6 million annually, and the costs of reducing such emissions was $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually.

The costs were as much as 2,400 times greater than the benefits.

The Obama administration’s EPA justified the rule based on what are called “co-benefits” or indirect benefits. According to the EPA’s proposed rule, the co-benefits are about 99.9 percent of all monetized benefits.
The benefits from mercury emission reductions might be minuscule, but the purported indirect benefits from reducing other air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter ($37 billion to $90 billion annually), exceed the costs of the rule.

These co-benefits can become a cover for regulating whatever the EPA wants, without ever having to justify the regulation of the targeted pollutant.

There is also a specific Clean Air Act process for regulating fine particulate matter and other criteria pollutants (six major air pollutants), as well as statutory language that may preclude such regulation under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which was the relevant section for the MATS rule.

This gaming of the system is also misleading to the public. For example, it gives the misimpression that reductions in mercury will yield significant benefits, when in fact the supposed benefits are almost entirely derived from projected reductions in fine particulate matter.

The Trump administration’s EPA is proposing to make much-needed changes.

The EPA argues that the MATS rule is not “appropriate and necessary.” The agency is not proposing to get rid of the MATS rule, but is clarifying that the Obama administration’s analysis was flawed.

Instead of using some extreme analysis when determining whether a rule is “appropriate and necessary,” the EPA will start using some common sense. From the proposed rule:

If the [hazardous air pollutant]-related benefits are not at least moderately commensurate with the cost of [hazardous air pollutant] controls, then no amount of co-benefits can offset this imbalance for purposes of a determination that it is appropriate to regulate under CAA Section 112.

The proposed rule would curtail the use of co-benefits in the context of the “appropriate and necessary” standard under the Clean Air Act.

This same rationale should apply to all EPA regulations, and other agencies should follow suit. Further, Congress should codify in law protections against co-benefits abuse.
The EPA has significant power, in large part because Congress has delegated far too much power and discretion to the agency, while courts have granted the agency unwarranted deference in its interpretations of statutes.

Usually, the focus regarding agency overreach is on how the EPA is improperly interpreting its authority under the law.

There needs to be more attention paid to the schemes the agency engages in to justify regulations that would fail any reasonable regulatory cost-benefit analysis.

That could help provide some limits on the EPA so it can’t just impose whatever regulations it wants without properly considering the harm and good it would be doing to the country.

]]>Saturday Quoteshttps://huntforliberty.com/saturday-quotes-20/
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:00:09 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28720You can’t fix stupid.” Ron White “Government intervention always breeds economic dislocations that necessitate more government intervention.” May be Ludwig von Mises “Bad government policy begets more bad government policy.” Mitchell’s Law “There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that…

“Government intervention always breeds economic dislocations that necessitate more government intervention.” May be Ludwig von Mises

“Bad government policy begets more bad government policy.” Mitchell’s Law

“There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.” Ronald Reagan

“Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained…” George Washington.

“Lord, the money we do spend on government! And it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.” Will Rogers

“Our National debt is our biggest National security threat.” Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Obama.

“Liberals believe that governments are moral and corporations are immoral. Conservatives know that both are amoral.” John Ransom

“America is being run by dead white men: Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, (and) Stalin. Bloomberg, Shumer, Soros, Meathead: not dead yet but we may be.” Graffiti on a building

“A ruler should fill the people’s stomachs and empty their heads.” Lao Tzu (However, Mr. Yang could have drawn on Lao Tzu’s libertarian thought and noted the following maxims: “When taxes are too high, people go hungry. When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit. Act for the people’s benefit. Trust them; leave them alone.” Lao Tzu adhered to the principle of nonintervention (wu wei) and discovered the principle of spontaneous order more than 2,000 years before Adam Smith. In the “Tao Te Ching,” he instructed that when the ruler leaves people alone, “the people of themselves become prosperous.” That is a lesson both Beijing and Washington need to learn. James A. Dorn The Cato Institute)

“Way before the term ‘politically correct’, there was a term, ‘freedom of speech’, and every American had it.” Unknown.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana, Spanish Philosopher

“Does adversity build character?…It does not. Almost all people can stand adversity of one sort or another. If you want to test a person’s character, give him power. Now, since we are concerning ourselves here with the very future of humanity, let me add one thing more. Power corrupts. Trust me on this. And because power corrupts, humanity’s need for those in power to be of high character increases as the importance of the position of leadership increases.” Abe Lincoln

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” Plato

“Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad with power.” Greek proverb.

]]>Privatize College Footballhttps://huntforliberty.com/privatize-college-football/
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 11:00:49 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28716[Editor: I’m an Auburn grad and have loved and followed college football, second only to MLB. I’ve given up on pro football, however because of the politics. But, maybe it is time for a better college game. I didn’t know the extent taxpayers played a role.] Privatize College Football for A Better Game Alice Salles•January…

]]>[Editor: I’m an Auburn grad and have loved and followed college football, second only to MLB. I’ve given up on pro football, however because of the politics. But, maybe it is time for a better college game. I didn’t know the extent taxpayers played a role.]

College football is big business. Unfortunately, taxpayers see little in return for all the money they put into it, willingly or not.

Just as we enter 2019 knowing the NCAA College Football National Championship playoff game will pit Alabama Crimson Tide vs. Clemson Tigers on January 7, an analysis from Forbes shows that out of the four teams that made it to the semifinals, only one doesn’t use public funds to pay its coach.

And interestingly enough, the only school that doesn’t rely on taxpayer charity can hold its own when it comes to profits, as it’s not drowning in debt like the other publicly funded institutions.

College football coaches, the highest paid public employees in the country, make millions of dollars every year. Take Nick Saban, the head coach for the University of Alabama, for instance. He made $11.7 million last year, earning the highest public salary in the country. Since 2010, Forbes found out, he’s received the total of $64 million — all funded by taxpayers.

University of Oklahoma’s head coach, Lincoln Riley, also earned big bucks, receiving $4.8 million last year. While University of Clemson’s head coach Dabo Swinney is the second highest paid coach in America, making $7.1 million a year.

All of this thanks to subsidies provided by average Americans.

But the University of Notre Dame, a private institution, doesn’t disclose how much it pays its coach. After all, it doesn’t use subsidized dough. Still, Forbes discovered that its head football coach, Brian Kelly, has a $2.1 million salary. A much more realistic figure when compared to the salaries other coaches are earning.

But if these numbers weren’t enough to convince you that the mere existence of subsidies distorts the market in a bad way, then take a look at each school and how much they profit from football.

Oklahoma earned $58.1 million in profits, Alabama made $46 million, and Clemson made a meager $7.8 million thanks to football. Notre Dame, the only private school to make it to the semifinals, made the most profits from football alone: $63 million.

Despite their earnings, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Clemson have already compromised their earnings due to their outstanding debt.

Alabama owes $225 million for the next 28 years, Oklahoma owes about $110 million, and Clemson, whose debt more than tripled in the last ten years, has to set aside$1,414 from each of its in-state student’s tuition and fees each year to pay its debt.

Notre Dame, on the other hand, has nothing but a bright future ahead, with a $13.1 billion endowment and a few billion more in assets.

It’s Time to Make College Football Great

As Forbes writers pointed out, we live in a “football-focused society where championships are purchased with taxpayer-guaranteed seven and eight-figure salaries.” But as Notre Dame has demonstrated, a private institution can do better than most while using its resources more wisely — and what’s best, without twisting the taxpayer’s arm.

As suggested by writer Skip Oliva for the Mises Institute, college football programs should turn their back to the NCAA and stop hiding behind “amateurism” to justify their dependence on the taxpayer. Instead, they could license their names and logos to private, for-profit subsidiaries that would operate the football programs independently.

This would allow teams to no longer be restricted by federal laws and what’s best, unsuccessful and unprofitable college programs would be weeded out as there would be no easy cash flow from the federal government to keep them going. If anything, privatizing college football would finally help us focus on what really matters: skills.

]]>Healthcare Corruption is the Normhttps://huntforliberty.com/healthcare-corruption-is-the-norm/
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:53:58 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28725This video is a good example of a form of socialistic healthcare but more precisely, of the cost we pay to crony capitalists: that is, government control of competition that benefits private companies ie, doctors, hospitals, clinics, regulators, insurance companies, etc in this example. We’re on the outside of this game, watching and yet, paying…

This video is a good example of a form of socialistic healthcare but more precisely, of the cost we pay to crony capitalists: that is, government control of competition that benefits private companies ie, doctors, hospitals, clinics, regulators, insurance companies, etc in this example. We’re on the outside of this game, watching and yet, paying for it.

We should all try to understand that this is the direction we have been going for a long time and we’re now attempting to double down on it even more with Medicare For All schemes that benefit the few at the expense of the many. A good way to dry up healthcare for the elderly and everyone else. Ask a Canadian why they come to the U.S. for healthcare.

]]>Medicare’s Gun is Loaded & Aimedhttps://huntforliberty.com/medicares-gun-is-loaded-aimed/
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:00:43 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28714The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Has Too Much Power By Joseph Antos, Ph.D. & James C. Capretta RealClearPolicy Contributor December 28, 2018 In the Affordable Care Act (ACA), House and Senate Democrats created a powerful and little-known agency — the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) — that can bypass Congress as it reshapes U.S. health…

In the Affordable Care Act (ACA), House and Senate Democrats created a powerful and little-known agency — the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) — that can bypass Congress as it reshapes U.S. health care. While its work is described as conducting research, the CMMI can develop and implement sweeping new policies that change how the giant public insurance programs — and ultimately the entire health system — are run. Congress should defend its prerogatives in the policymaking process by limiting the CMMI’s authority.

The CMMI’s power has been on display in recent weeks. The Trump administration has proposed an international price index to cap Medicare drug payments and is planning to use the CMMI’s broad authority to put the concept into effect. Whatever one thinks of the index, it is unquestionably a major policy change with consequences that extend well beyond Medicare. Without the CMMI, Congress would have had to pass new legislation to turn this idea into national policy.

Establishing a policy making process that can get around Capitol Hill gridlock is tempting, but it comes with risks. The CMMI is a new benchmark in the ever-growing power of the executive branch, which is crowding out the role Congress should be playing in our constitutional system.

To a large extent, the rise in the relative power of the executive branch has been Congress’s own doing. Congress has delegated too much discretion to federal agencies, and, as partisan gridlock has made legislating more difficult, executive agencies have filled the policymaking void. It is no surprise that, after Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2014 (the House had already flipped in 2010), President Obama felt he could still govern effectively by exerting the expansive powers of the executive branch through his “pen and phone.”

In creating the CMMI, Congress once again ceded to the executive branch the power to establish policies that traditionally have fallen within the purview of Congress. The CMMI has the authority to test and evaluate new health-care policies for Medicare and Medicaid programs, and then put them into effect on a permanent basis if they are found to cut costs without harming quality.

The CMMI’s authority is so broad that very little is beyond its potential reach. In addition to the international price index, the agency could change how Medicare pays private insurers operating as Medicare Advantage plans, introduce a public option into Medicare’s drug benefit, or restructure how physicians get paid in the traditional Medicare program.

The CMMI’s vast power is backed by generous funding. The ACA granted the CMMI an initial appropriation of $10 billion to begin its work, and the agency will get another $10 billion every ten years. No further action by Congress is necessary for the agency to keep getting more resources.

The Obama administration used CMMI to roll out 34 separate projects, including controversial tests of “bundled payments” for high-volume surgical procedures which required mandatory physician participation (two out of the three mandatory projects were converted into voluntary tests by the Trump administration in 2017).

In 2016, the Obama administration proposed to test a new Medicare payment policy for physician-administered drugs (including treatments for cancer and other serious illnesses) that was little more than a simple cut in reimbursement. The administration stopped short of implementing the policy because of intense criticism from physicians and patients. That outcome was not guaranteed. CMMI had the power to impose the cut regardless of the complaints even though it was clear Congress would not have approved the change in a legislative proposal.

Now it’s the Trump administration’s turn to use CMMI to get around Congress, and especially a House which will soon be under Democratic control. In addition to the international price index, the administration is planning to use the CMMI to pursue changes which would inject more consumer choice and competition into the public programs.

Many of these proposals are worth exploring, but they may not last beyond the current administration. Some congressional Republicans may see the CMMI as advantageous because the Trump administration can proceed with its ideas without getting blocked by Democrats. But that’s a short-sighted perspective. Eventually a Democrat will be president again, and the CMMI will be used to pursue an agenda the GOP opposes.

There is precedent for Congress reversing course and pulling back on authority previously granted to the executive branch. The ACA also created the presidentially-appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which was charged with enforcing a spending cap on Medicare. In theory, Congress could have enacted changes that would have overridden the IPAB’s policies. But the law gave little time for a legislative response, virtually assuring that the board’s recommendations to cut Medicare payments would have gone into effect by default.

Congressional Republicans immediately saw that the IPAB was an undisguised attempt to shift legislative powers to the executive branch. They offered a series of bills to abolish it, and eventually succeeded in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act. Many House and Senate Democrats supported IPAB’s repeal because they saw it would weaken their constitutional role in the policymaking process.

Few Republicans in Congress are giving CMMI much thought these days because the government is now run by a Republican administration. But over the long run, conservative governance requires placing limits on executive power. In this case, that means Congress should pass new legislation restricting what the CMMI can do by limiting its authority to conducting real and temporary research. Under the Constitution, it is left to Congress to pass judgment, through the legislative process, on significant and permanent shifts in federal policy, and that is as it should be.

]]>The Root of Education’s Problemhttps://huntforliberty.com/the-root-of-educations-problem/
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:00:15 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28711It’s Not Money Causing Teachers To Leave Their Jobs In Droves, It’s People Money is not at the root of America’s education problem. The true root of the issue lies with the human participants. By Justin McClinton JANUARY 8, 2019 The Wall Street Journal recently framed the record number of teachers leaving the profession as the result…

The Wall Street Journal recently framed the record number of teachers leaving the profession as the result of a money problem. Unfortunately, the reasons teachers are quitting their jobs isn’t as easily explained as the mainstream media would like you to believe.

Teaching is considered a noble profession for a deep spiritual reason. So the decline of the teaching profession cannot be explained by just following the money, and the same can be said about the American K-12 system as whole.

While many frame teaching as a low-paying profession, this is generally not the case. The average teacher salary nationwide is $59,050, according to federal statistics, above the national median income. That doesn’t include health or pension benefits, which are on average 50 percent greater than those of private-sector workers.

Compensation like this might present some difficulty with purchasing power in America’s major cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, but I know many young teachers who live fairly well even in these cities. They might not be able to compete with college classmates who chose the banking industry, but these young people don’t choose to become teachers for the salary.

The sort of people interested in teaching choose the profession because they consider the work meaningful. It also provides the benefit of work-life balance, and if money is a concern there are plenty of opportunities for teachers to use weekends or summers to earn extra income.

Big Government Is a Problem

Teaching is a diverse profession greatly affected by the demographics of one’s students, which is why teaching is best approached as a local enterprise. The more centralized and bureaucratized teaching has gotten, the more the profession has become spiritually draining.

The money paid to teachers isn’t bad at all, but once one considers the burden of the job then the imbalance can be explained. Yet this is not simply a problem one can throw money at. Those with the temperament to become teachers are not wired the same way as investment bankers. Throwing money at the problem of stress might work in the jobs where people work with things, but it is not a fix for the jobs where people work with people.

Teachers can deal with the stress caused by their students because that is what they signed up for. What teachers cannot deal with is the stress caused by the other adults. Administrators in a school must act as representatives of the distant state and federal governments. The administrators are not to blame for this, as they are usually from the rank and file of the teaching profession who seek advancement.

The problem is their job is not to support teachers, but to maintain pseudo-order imposed by out-of-touch bureaucrats. In many places this system works fine, yet in many places it does not. This phenomena has also taken hold in charter schools—independent public schools that are usually privately managed—and the more schools within a charter network, the more bureaucratic oversight exists.

Charter Schools Can’t Fix the Problem Either

Charter schools are now subject to the same issues that ruined our public education in the first place. The bureaucrat class within charter schools conducts a misguided experiment: they think faux corporate hiring, assessment, and firing tactics will in some way benefit students, when it usually just causes crippling instability.

Assessing teacher quality is in no way settled science. Student performance on standardized tests is a good place to start, but that alone might tell us little about the quality of an individual teacher. Test scores are the result of a complex mix of IQ and many years of school experience, so to lay that at the feet of an individual teacher during one school year is just laughable.

Charter schools are the guiltiest of this performative fallacy, and it plays a large part into why many of them are just as bad as their public school counterparts. Few charter school networks actually boast impressive student test scores. To go all-in on test scores as an assessment of school and teacher quality is to accept a reality where names like Success and KIPP could become the education industries equivalent to Google and Amazon.

Money is not at the root of America’s education problem. The true root of the issue lies with the human participants. The Chicagoland suburb where I attended high school has some of the highest-paid teachers in the country. In the majority of the cases, these individuals earn just about every dollar they make, but the above-average per pupil expenditure still results in some of the worst-performing students in the state.

By no means does this sad reality, which is shared by many areas around the country, have a simple explanation. It is the result of complex human problems that at this point are so misunderstood that blame should be reserved entirely or at the very least shared by all until we start to scratch the surface of how it all could’ve gone so wrong.

What we do firmly know is that there is much room for improvement within the American education system. The greatest catch-22 is perhaps that our education system no longer prepares enough citizens to perform the deeply intellectual labor that would be required to improve such a system. Plenty of smart people following the money has led to little if any improvement in American education, and it’s time to start considering some alternatives.

Justin McClinton was born on the south side of Chicago. He is a Morehouse Man, a Sowellian, and a lover of all things Chicago sports sans Cubs. He is also a PhD candidate in education policy and a University of California free speech and civic engagement fellow.

]]>Congressional Term Limits Introducedhttps://huntforliberty.com/congressional-term-limits-introduced/
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:00:34 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28709Sen. Ted Cruz And Rep. Francis Rooney Introduce ‘Term Limits’ Amendment By FRANK CAMP January 4, 2019 On Thursday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Francis Rooney (R-FL) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States. The proposed amendment would place term limits on elected officials in the Senate and House. The text…

On Thursday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Francis Rooney (R-FL) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States. The proposed amendment would place term limits on elected officials in the Senate and House.

The text of S.J.Res.1 reads:

SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than one year.

SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy for more than three years.

SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility for election or appointment under this article.

The bill, which is co-sponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), was introduced and “read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,” according to the official website for the United States Congress.

For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people. Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.

This isn’t the first time Cruz has proposed term limits. In January 2017, the senator introduced a joint resolution identical to the one he proposed on Thursday, and it was referred to Judiciary Committee.

At the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Cruz said the following about term limits:

This election was the American people saying, “Enough already with the corruption in Washington.” It’s both parties. It’s Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long, who have become captured by this city … what’s amazing is the support for this, it cuts across, in this polarized time, you get supermajorities of Republicans, of Democrats, of independents, who all say, “Throw the bums out,” and we ought to listen.

Cruz later added that he wants the American people to “hold us accountable.”

The idea of term limits isn’t a new one, nor is it one about which everyone agrees. There are those who believe that elections serve as a type of term limit, and that if the American people are no longer satisfied with a particular politician, they can and will vote them out.

Perhaps the most recent example of vote-based term limiting is the defeat of former Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the 2018 midterm elections.

McCaskill took on Republican incumbent James Talent in the 2006 midterm election, and won. In 2012, she routed Republican challenger Todd Akin. After serving two terms in the United States Senate, McCaskill lost her seat to Republican Josh Hawley by more than five percentage points.

That said, term limits have been applied in the past. In 1947 — approximately two and a half years after Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected for a fourth term — Congress introduced what would later become the 22nd Amendment, which places a two-term limit on presidents. The Amendment was ratified in February 1951.

The idea of term limits is also popular among the American people. In 2013, a Gallup survey showed that 75% of Americans would vote in favor of a congressional term limit law. In 2016, a Rasmussen survey showed similar results, with 74% of “likely U.S. voters” favoring term limits.

When The Daily Wire spoke with Rep. Rooney, he noted that there are numerous “tangential benefits” to a term limit amendment. He also stated that the advantages of the incumbent, including but not limited to name recognition, can sometimes make it difficult to use voting as an effective means of limiting the time an elected official spends in office:

There are a lot of advantages to the incumbency that make it more difficult. People become more skilled at building up their name ID, which is kind of like a capital asset. For a politician, name ID is like owning an oil well. It becomes harder and harder for people to lose under those circumstances.

Plus, I think [term limits] would be a predestined foreshortening of career; it would change the tenor of public service in Washington. It would mean that the special interests would limit their investment in these people, and these people would have to limit their investment in the special interests, and be looking down the road to the future. [They] wouldn’t have time to build up these long, cozy ties with their favorite lobbyist.

As for potential Democratic support for the joint resolution, Rooney stated that although former Rep. Beto O’Rourke “was the only Democrat member of the term limits caucus last time,” it’s possible that elected term limit advocates “can recruit some more support now.”

In order to pass an amendment to the Constitution, two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve, and then it must be ratified by 38 state legislatures (three-fourths of all states). If passed and ratified, it would become the 28th Amendment.

]]>A Solution to Our Civility Crisishttps://huntforliberty.com/a-solution-to-our-civility-crisis/
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:00:15 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28707WSJ December 29, 2018 Kant in Kindergarten Could Ease the Civility Crisis His Categorical Imperative steers us away from both selfish and zealously idealistic behavior. By Paula Marantz Cohen | 804 words We’ve recently witnessed a lot of vituperation, self-righteousness and bad behavior on both sides of the political spectrum. Is there a remedy? I…

His Categorical Imperative steers us away from both selfish and zealously idealistic behavior.

By Paula Marantz Cohen | 804 words

We’ve recently witnessed a lot of vituperation, self-righteousness and bad behavior on both sides of the political spectrum. Is there a remedy? I suggest we ignore pundits and psychologists and instead consult the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785), he proposed what he called the Categorical Imperative.

Kant gave the imperative three formulations, two of which are relevant here. The first: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This is similar to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” In other words, never treat other people as objects. Martin Buber later put forth a similar idea with his “I-Thou” dictum, which sees subject-to-subject relationships leading ultimately to a relationship with God as the eternal Subject.

In extricating us from our current moral morass, the first formulation alone will not do, since it suggests that how you want to be treated should be generalized for everyone. That’s precisely what the right and the left are attempting to do now: Each side has its own concept of moral righteousness and no ability to find common ground. The second formulation, however, puts a brake on the first. It forbids us from treating others as the means to impose our own ideals on the world.

To live according to the two formulations of the Categorical Imperative is often difficult, and there can be circumstances in which it must be overruled (the famous example is lying to protect someone hiding from the Nazis). But using these formulations as a litmus test for good behavior seems the only way back to sanity and civility.

Kant supplied a map in his 1803 treatise, “On Education.” What he termed “negative education” is associated with a child’s earliest training. It involves teaching that there is an authority beyond the self. This idea—which could, but need not, dovetail with religious instruction—lays the groundwork for a later “positive education,” which employs reason to examine and judge difficult situations that occur in life.

Since the 1960s, society has generally embraced a view of childrearing that focuses on the child’s freedom and autonomy. Kant’s moral theory centers on the freedom of others. If children are to develop into rational, moral adults, they must eventually come to see right action as a duty beyond the self.

Parents would begin this process of moral training, and teachers would continue it from kindergarten onward, following a curriculum that inculcates the Categorical Imperative and analyzes situations in light of its two formulations. This would require teacher-education programs to develop case studies, geared to different age groups, in which students would practice and hone moral judgment. It would mean inserting moral education into the training of teachers at all grade levels. This would help promote ideas traditionally covered by religion in a society in which religious exposure has diminished.

I believe moral teaching of this kind would make society more compassionate as well as more moral. If we also acknowledge that, even with Kant’s aid, determining what is right is difficult and often incremental, we can become better at understanding the frailties and blind spots of others. Treating moral character as an ideal to strive for, alongside treating people as ends rather than means, is a recipe for forgiveness and empathy rather than severe judgment.

What is now occurring in our nation reflects both a profound lack of moral rigor and a failure to understand when those around us appear to fall short of our personal or collective ideal of righteousness. The resulting hypocrisy and meanness are on display at every turn. Those who pillory one day, find themselves pilloried the next. Having just taught Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible,” which he meant as a metaphor for the McCarthy hearings during the Red Scare of the 1950s, I see how closely the play conforms to our current climate. A fanatical desire to hunt out moral corruption has supplanted the difficult work of being morally upright.

But a society that abandons moral education and fails to pursue the Categorical Imperative will be a debased and untrustworthy one. No one will be believed. No profession of friendship or love will be free of suspicion. By the same token, anyone unmasked as less than a moral paragon will be vilified.

Integrity and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Society needs an approach—devoted to moral rigor but comprehending of human frailty—that understands this.

]]>Natelson’s Law of Article Vhttps://huntforliberty.com/natelsons-law-of-article-v/
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:12 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28722A Road Map to Article V by Mike Kapic January 7, 2019 I’m not a lawyer or a scholar but an amateur historian who began researching Article V in late 2013 and found a treasure trove of learned material. Historical material. Because of the many claims that we don’t know how a convention of states…

I’m not a lawyer or a scholar but an amateur historian who began researching Article V in late 2013 and found a treasure trove of learned material. Historical material. Because of the many claims that we don’t know how a convention of states works, I researched and authored a book in 2018. Conventions That Made America: A Brief History of Consensus Building is a brief compilation of Professor Natelson’s work as he’s researched and written the most on the subject.

Natelson’s recent The Law of Article V: State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments is not only a highly comprehensive work on Article V, it is fine piece of writing. The book can be read by the novice to the convention process and they’ll come away with a clear and factual understanding of the second clause of Article V. Or it can be utilized as a research tool by the legislator or activist.

Although Timothy Dake’s Far From Unworkable speaks to a broader Article V content, it doesn’t focus as tightly on the current issues facing America today. It gives a basic understanding of the historical skeleton of Article V and I suggest that Dake’s book is a history of the convention process itself. So is Natelson’s to an extent, but he drills down further in each of the key administrative elements of Article V’s convention process. He briefly argues against the historically false claims for not using the second clause of Article V today. I suggest then, that Natelson’s book is more like a road map: an explanation of the skeleton and how to use it to get from point A to point B and which avenues to avoid.

Natelson is one of leading scholars on the subject from his years of constitutional research and writing, and he is the most quoted by the US judiciary including the Supreme Court.

The book is divided into four parts which logically gives the reader a thorough understanding of Article V. Part I describes the sourced material and compare’s early historical examples with arguments of today. The enlightening discussion on the three waves of activity beginning in the 1960s, outlines how some have become foolishly frightened of Article V. Americans, through a loss of knowledge, have only recently learned how to react to the so-called threats of using the second clause.

Part II lists the many court cases for reader research.

Part III explores the history and analyses of the text. The various administrative elements of how conventions began and evolved and how through precedence and common law they became fixtures of the process.

Part IV covers forms and samples of those conventions administrative fixtures such as voting, delegate selection, rules, etc.

Natelson has given us a detailed analysis of the law of Article V’s second clause in a relatively easy read. He has assembled a road map of how to understand the Founders intention and use the second clause of Article V for the first time. Over 400 attempts have been made since 1788 while Congress has attempted to propose amendments nearly 12,000 times. Where does our confidence in DC to make Constitutional changes lie: Congress or ourselves? This is a road map on why and how we the people and our states can return the country to America’s original structure and values.

]]>Free Speech Advocates Suehttps://huntforliberty.com/free-speech-advocates-sue/
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:00:47 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28705Free Speech Advocates Sue University of Texas Over Restrictive Policies Chloe Anagnos•December 24, 2018 The University of Texas, a public college, is under fire for reportedly stifling free speech on campus. Now, free speech advocates are suing the institution. According to Speech First, a nationwide community and advocacy group focused on fighting to protect the First Amendment, UT’s…

The University of Texas, a public college, is under fire for reportedly stifling free speech on campus. Now, free speech advocates are suing the institution.

According to Speech First, a nationwide community and advocacy group focused on fighting to protect the First Amendment, UT’s speech policies, the campus climate response team, and the school’s residence hall manuals all have policies in place that stifle the free debate of ideas.

In its release regarding the lawsuit, Speech First reported the school received “more than 100 reports of alleged ‘expressions of bias,’” which included posts on social media, fliers, verbal comments, posters, and others. These reports were all investigated by the school’s “bias response team” since September 2017, spreading fear on campus.

According to Speech First, this approach to speech crackdown prompted students to think twice before discussing matters such as abortion, immigration, and identity politics.

To the group, students now “fear their speech will be anonymously reported as derogatory, hostile, and/or offensive to university authorities through the Campus Climate Response Team.”

In addition to targeting the school’s bias task force, Speech First is also questioning UT’s response to speech considered “offensive.”

Because the school has failed to clearly define the terms it uses to describe unwanted speech in its Residence Hall Manual and Acceptable Use Policy, the group explains, the school “failed to appropriately safeguard students’ First Amendment rights,” Speech First President Nicole Neily told reporters.

“Students deserve to be able to express themselves and voice their opinions without fear of investigation or punishment – which is why these policies must be reformed.”

One of the cases highlighted by the group involved the Young Conservatives of Texas.

After the organization set up a table supporting then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused of assault but never convicted, the group suffered attacks from those who disagreed with them. And many students even said the school should have done more to shut them down.

After the incident, students said that pro-Kavanaugh posters “triggered” sexual assault survivors, pressuring the school to respond. UT eventually issued a statement saying that while it supports free speech it does not support messages that promote violence and threats.

On another occasion, UT cracked down on themed Halloween parties that would encourage “bigoted costumes” such as country or “border-themed” events.

The Public School As An Arm Of The State

To Speech First’s Niely, the problem isn’t about students debating their colleagues or trying to shun each other. What bothers freedom of speech advocates is that “a school as a state actor [is] stepping in and picking winners and losers.” She is right.

A college, especially a public one, stands as an arm of the state, especially in the minds of its students. To use this power to impose a point of view, no matter how harmless it may seem, is stifling the debate and shielding students from going through experiences that will push them to become better versions of themselves.

It’s time we begin to look at this nationwide trend of schools targeting free speech in the name of political correctness as the threat that it really is, especially to the younger generations.

]]>Gun Control and the Value of Lifehttps://huntforliberty.com/gun-control-and-the-value-of-life/
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:30:20 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28702For all the shootings in LA, Chicago, NY City, & other cities, has there been a count of the number of shooters who passed the NICS background checks before they were issued a gun?

]]>Saturday Quoteshttps://huntforliberty.com/saturday-quotes-19/
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:00:17 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28698“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.” Martin…

“Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that? We must have perseverance and above all confidence in ourselves. We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained.” Marie Curie

“Liberty is the essential basis, the sine qua non, of morality. Morality can only exist in a free society, it can exist to the extent freedom exists.” Henry Hazlitt

“‘Freedom to’” is a guarantee that no one, including the government, will be allowed to interfere with one’s freedom.” Henry Hazlitt

]]>Homeschooling Grows in AZhttps://huntforliberty.com/homeschooling-grows-in-az/
Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:00:36 +0000https://huntforliberty.com/?p=28696New Arizona law puts home-schooled students on equal footing David and Christina Garretson have three children who are school aged and learning from home. By Philip Haldiman JANUARY 7, 2019 David and Christina Garretson met in 2001 while working at an elementary school in the Washington School District. Even then, they knew they wanted to…

David and Christina Garretson have three children who are school aged and learning from home.

By Philip Haldiman JANUARY 7, 2019

David and Christina Garretson met in 2001 while working at an elementary school in the Washington School District.

Even then, they knew they wanted to become home-school parents — before they were married, before they had any children and before they moved into their current house.

Initially, Mr. Garretson was hesitant, but after witnessing Christina work as a one-on-one aid for a young girl with Down Syndrome, he was convinced.

“We had the pleasure of working with some amazing teachers, most of which are still good friends,” he said. “But when I saw the amazing amount of growth this little girl had in the few years my wife worked with her, I knew I wanted Christina teaching our future children.”

The number of Northwest Valley children being home-schooled as opposed to receiving an education from a traditional school has gone up in Maricopa County since at least 2013.

Arizona has many options for parents to educate their children: public school districts, private schools, charter schools, K-12 online and home-school.

Mr. Garretson, a Surprise resident who has five children, three of which are being home-schooled, said each of these options have their pros and cons.

“I think one of our biggest challenges in the home-school community is getting the word out to parents that homeschooling is a viable option with a lot of benefits,” he said.

That’s why Mr. Garrick was pleased with the passage of HB2536 this year, which gave homeschooling a stronger footing in equity with the other educational options.

Arizona students, including those home-schooled, may enroll in community colleges and schools such as West-MEC to participate in dual enrollment classes. However, before the new law, such schools were not allowed to give college credit to home-schooled students who successfully completed the courses, while public school students were granted credit.

Mr. Garrettson said it is surprising how often home-schoolers run into this kind of issue.

He said there seems to be a bias out there that basically assumes because home-schoolers are taught by their parents or guardian, they just give them A+ grades no matter what.

“In practice it’s the exact opposite. Home-school families have often times made the financial sacrifice of becoming a one-income family and we have a significant time investment in our children’s education,” Mr. Garrettson said. “Because of these two factors, I believe home-school parents grade harder than, say, a pubic school teacher would. We have higher expectations of our children because of the significant investment we are putting into their growth and education.”

Why home-school?

More than 600 students in the Northwest Valley are being home-schooled, according to the Maricopa County school superintendent’s office.

Nancy Manos, executive director of Arizona Families for Home Education, said parents decide to home-school for a variety of reasons.

She said they can range from wanting to provide a faith-based education to wanting to direct their child’s education, tailoring the curriculum and topics of study to their children’s unique interests, strengths and weaknesses.

Most of the students home-schooled in the Northwest Valley would have gone to Deer Valley, Dysart and Peoria unified school districts.

“A trend that has become quite common recently is that families are choosing to be home-schooled because they are unhappy with public schools, whether because their child isn’t getting the support they need, especially for children with special needs, or because of bullying or safety concerns and other reasons,” she said.

On the other hand, public school districts provide a variety of benefits.

Peoria Unified spokeswoman Danielle Airey said the strength of public schools is access to an experience that helps to build well-rounded students, who are prepared for college and careers.

She said PUSD offers open enrollment, encouraging parents to shop for the campus environment and experience where they think their child will be most successful. When someone doesn’t feel their neighborhood school is the best fit, the district has a team that specializes in pairing the unique gifts and talents of each child to help families make the best educational choice, she said.

“We recognize that families have options in where to send their child for school,” Ms. Airey said. “One of the unique aspects of being the fourth largest pre-K through 12 grade school district in the state is that we have the resources to meet the individual needs of each and every child. Larger districts, like ours, offer specialty programs, like arts, athletics, gifted education, a traditional school, language immersion, a continuum of special education and character-building programs.”

Home-school challenges

Challenges in homeschooling can range from lack of awareness to the stigma of getting colleges, the government and other organizations to treat homeschooling the same as other educational options.

Mr. Garretson said teaching at home often brings “the look” from others — the look of “how could you do this to these precious children?” or “how could you put your children at such a disadvantage?” or “your poor children must not be very socialized” or “how can you stand being around your children all day like that?”

It is not so much about why people choose to home-school, it is why people keep at it even when it gets tough, he said.

“The worst is when you get the look from family. Inevitably, after ‘testing’ our children, they find that they are not only well educated but they are also smart, articulate, well mannered and respectful. I think getting over these inaccurate stigmas is a big challenge that the home-school community faces,” Mr. Garretson said. “Ask people around you who has had the most impact on your life and why? Most of the people will say a family member, some may say a teacher and a few might say a former boss. When they get to the why part, the answer is usually the same — that person poured into me. They took the time to influence and grow me. I’ve heard a lot of different reasons why parents choose to home-school their children but ultimately what keeps them home-schooling is the amazing relationship they get with their children. The opportunity to pour into them, to influence and grow them on a daily basis.”

Philip Haldiman can be reached at 623-876-3697 or phaldiman@newszap.com. Visit yourvalley.net.

Home-schoolers by district

20132014 201520162017 2018

Deer Valley Unified 116 173 165 161 218 198

Dysart Unified 81 99 138 171 149 197

Peoria Unified 75 100 103 116 127 168

Glendale Elementary 15 13 17 24 32 30

Glendale Union 18 25 22 19 21 24

Benefits of home schooling

One-on-one tutorial style of learning is highly effective.

Parents are able to tailor a course of study to their child’s individual abilities, learning style, needs and future goals.

Flexibility to customize the pace at which the child moves through the material is beneficial for concept mastery.

Parents are able to choose the worldview through which their children are educated.

Learning together builds strong family relationships.

There is greater opportunity for character training. Parents have the ability to address character issues consistently as they arise.

Students often have more time to pursue areas of interest.

High school students can get a jumpstart on college education or career preparation.